The processor is slated to launch in a little more than three weeks, but it appears that information about the CPU has already been disclosed. The model number has not appeared on AMD's website yet. AMD's model number, ADX6000IAA6CZ, was leaked with some preliminary specifications on Asrock's motherboard support website early this year.

The CPU is a 90nm dual-core 3.0GHz processor. It features 1MB L2 cache per core and is essentially identical to the Athlon 64 FX-74 processor with the exception that the 6000+ uses Socket AM2 instead of Socket 1207.

I hate to say it, but K8 is starting to feel like Netburst at this point. Release after release of pointless 'faster' processors from AMD. AFAI am concerned, there's really no reason to buy any AM2 beyond a 3800 x2

The only difference is that Netburst was just a bad baby while K8 is more or less just long in the tooth.

What are you talking about exactly? Fanboyism? Quit smoking. Fanboyism is when a guy defends a brand despite facts. Core 2 Duo owns AMD mhz for mhz. Back then, AMD used to be cheaper, giving more bang for the buck, so people bought them. Now, C2D is the one giving more bang for your buck, so people switch. God forbid we buy good products? Its not fanboyism if there is a switch. Its the ones who stay loyal to a brand and refuse to looks at the facts that are fanboys. I'm typing on an AMD, and had 2 AMD computers before this. Now, I see how good Intel is making their CPUs, and that is undeniable. Better to keep money in America anyways.

now i am rofl, knowing that this AMD CPU was designed and validated by hard working Austin Texans -- and the Intel CPU designed and tested in good ole' Israel. What is your economic lesson here? That AMD has a fab in DK; packages in Malaysia? Where do you think Intel does their packaging?

You would do well to take some of your own advice. Regardless of where Intel's R&D, manufacturing, testing, purchasing, and shipping occur that profit still ends up in the hands of Intel corporation. While labor and other SG&A do become out of pocket expenditures for Intel, those costs are already accounted for in the price of Intel's products. Give or take for import tariffs (if applicable) and currency exchange rates and that profit still stays with Intel, right here in America. Just like it would with AMD.

Intel is a publicly traded company. That means that any and all assets are owned by the stock holders. Be they American, Deutsch, or Japanese. The same is true for auto manufacturers. The profit goes to the stock holders. The real money is where the workers are located. The economy where the workers of a large labor force gets paid is where you need to be looking to make your purchasing choices if you are ignorant enough to care where it is "made".

Intel has six assembly and test sites worldwide and is building a seventh, all of them outside the U.S. Assembly and test sites outside the United States are located in Shanghai, China; Chengdu, China; San Jose, Costa Rica; Kulim, Malaysia; Penang, Malaysia; and Cavite, Philippines. An assembly and testing site in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, is under construction. There is one testing facility and one assembly development facility inside the U.S.

About half of Intel’s total workforce is involved in production or production services.

A) AMD is based in Sunnyvale, CA... I guess that makes it less American than Intel?
B)Intel and AMD are both good at what they do... AMD may be a bit long in the product cycle, but that may change with Barcelona.
C) C2D only gives more bang for the buck at a certain price point... below that AMD is still better.

I'm happy with my 939 x2 3800+ as well. I mean, it is easily clocked to 2.7ghz.... But I won't hop on c2d, I'll either wait for Intel to shoot its own prices down by releasing The 45nm chips which will be batter than current 65nm versions, or until amd releases better architecture

My company is now buying AM2 based machines, and probably will for the next year. The comparable Core 2 based machines available through our supplier is almost 50% more expensive, so our desktops are currently Athlon64 3500+ or the X2 4200+. For just under $800, we can get a 4200+, 1GB memory, 80GB SATA hard drive, and DVD/CD-RW. The closest unit CDW has with a Core 2 is a 6400 with 1GB memory for $1180. We're actually better off with the AM2 systems. If the price comes down by next year, we might buy the Core 2 based systems.

OTOH, our laptops are all Core/Core 2 based.

We have a certain budget, and we go for the best we can get within that budget. In this case, our desktops are HP DC5750's and our laptops are HP NC6400's.

For the money, we couldn't find more reliable or better performing systems.

Well you should find a different distributor. We are building C2D's with 1GB Kingston Value RAM, 80GB WD HDD's, Case, PS, E6300, and DVDRW's for $600 (give or take $50 depending on memory and part price flux.) That's just $200 more than the 3.0 P4's we used to build.

quote: The only difference is that Netburst was just a bad baby while K8 is more or less just long in the tooth.

How exactly is the K8 "long in the tooth" while Netburst was not?! Keep in mind that Netburst was first released in 2000 and between that time and the end of 2003 when AMD released their Athlon64 it was generally the fastest processor out there (there was a brief period when the AthlonXP was about on-par with the fastest P4s, but that was only a few months).

By the time Netburst was being really eclipsed by the Athlon64 architecture it slightly over 3 years old. On the other hand, the Athlon64 was slightly less then 3 years old when the Core 2 Duo was released.

The problem was NOT that Netburst was a bad baby, it was just that Intel didn't have a replacement for it until almost 3 years after it was needed! Actually, they sort of did in the Prescott, which was rather heavily modified from the original P4. Now THAT was a "bad baby". However looking at the P4 in general, and in particular the Northwood where it really hit it's stride, the P4 was actually quite a good processor.

When the P4 was released, the fastest AMD chip was 1.2GHz, and the two were competitive. But by the summer of 2001 Intel was up to 2.0GHz with the P4 vs. 1.4GHz for AMD and only 1.13GHz for the P3. By that stage the raw clock speed of the P4 was enough to overcome any other potential weaknesses and it was the performance leader in the majority of applications. There were a few months when AMD was competitive again with the release of their AthlonXP chips in late 2001, but the release of the Northwood in Jan. of 2002 pretty much negated that.

AMD could still compete reasonably well though due to costs, not just of the processor but also the motherboards and especially the RDRAM needed for the P4.

Anyway, the long story short is that while the P4 had more than it's fair share of detractors and it was often very expensive for the performance it offered, for several years of it's life it was the fastest chip out there. The same was true with the Athlon64.